4 ms·
That's why I said the email should contain info about the sender -- there should of course be a way to contact them. Ideally you should just be able to reply to
by newaccount74 5y ago
That's why I said the email should contain info about the sender -- there should of course be a way to contact them. Ideally you should just be able to reply to the message and tell them about the error. If there's no way to contact a company, that's a whole different problem, and not really one that would be fixed with unsubscribe links in important email messages.
- berdon 5y agoIn 99% of the cases - there is no recourse. In one instance, I tried replying and they asked me to prove my identity as the customer to cancel the emails.
- Spooky23 5y agoI have a few hundred dollars worth of gift cards for an Australian store received as gifts over several years. The company won’t talk to me, and the sender sends a lovely message, but no contact information.
- pishpash 5y agoThis, I've had people receiving bank alerts for an account they don't own and they can't be stopped. What these companies lack are customer-centric processes that they've thought through. Wtf is wrong with putting contact information in the unsubscribe link, or reach out productively on request? Why would you presume somebody clicks it by accident vs. the much more likely case of it being a legitimate request? Are you afraid they really want to cancel your service? Or are you afraid you can't send spam under the guise of transactional messages? Or worse, listen to customers about how best to alert them? Truly ridiculous!
- onli 5y ago> Wtf is wrong with putting contact information in the unsubscribe link By law, depending where you are, a unsubscribe link has to be instant. So there can not be an intermediate screen asking for confirmation or showing contact information. Well, you could show contact information, but then the unsubscribe (of in this case service critical mails, thus the service itself) had already happened.
- pishpash 5y agoI'm assuming you're referring to the CAN-SPAM Act [1] or equivalent in other jurisdiction [2], but nothing of the sort is implied. The requirement is to make available and process opt-out without charge and promptly (typically in so many days). It is neither dire nor prevents clarification, nor prescribes a specific experience related to unsubscribe links. It's odd to hear the only options are between receiving messages and having service terminated. That sounds pretty user-hostile tbh. [1] https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/can-spam-act-compliance-guide-business https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/can... [2] https://www.lsoft.com/resources/optinlaws.asp https://www.lsoft.com/resources/optinlaws.asp
- onli 5y agoOh, interesting! https://www.rapidmail.de/blog/welche-vorgaben-gelten-bei-der-dsgvo-konformen-newsletter-abmeldung#abmeldelink https://www.rapidmail.de/blog/welche-vorgaben-gelten-bei-der... claims the same for Germany. That makes it a bit easier to find a solution.
- jsnell 5y ago> That's why I said the email should contain info about the sender -- there should of course be a way to contact them. That implies a level of manual effort on the part of the recipient that's unreasonable. I have no relationship with these companies. They did not verify the email address before starting to send a stream of supposedly transactional messages to it. They should be happy that I'm willing to click unsubscribe when available, because the alternative is to set up a mark-as-spam filtering rule that'll hopefully tank their sender reputation. Writing them via a contact form begging to be removed is not an option.
- JohnTHaller 5y agoYup. And is this situation the recipient will just mark it as spam. Because to them that's what it is.